2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendants shall pay to the Plaintiff an amount of 20% interest per annum from the next day of the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

A. On March 28, 1960, Lee B-B, the Plaintiff, purchased 100 square meters from the Defendant Republic of Korea from the Defendant Republic of Korea for a specific portion of 47 OO-dong O-dong 47 to 5,720 square meters (hereinafter “pre-land substitution”). On July 15, 1964, the Defendant Incheon Metropolitan City completed the registration of ownership transfer for 100/5,720 shares of the land pre-land substitution. While implementing a land readjustment project on April 14, 1970 when designating a pre-land substitution substitution land, this B-B purchased part of the pre-land substitution to the land substitution and confirmation of the land substitution, but the ownership transfer registration was completed with respect to the entire adjacent land of 18 parcels without the ownership transfer registration, and the ownership transfer registration was completed as co-owners.

나. 원고는 이BB가 1973. 6. 19. 사망함에 따라 1990. 2. 27. 이 사건 토지 중 300/148，720 지분에 관하여 상속을 원인으로 하는 소유권이전등기를 마치고， 1996. 11. 11. 이 사건 토지 중 2，300/148，720 지분에 관하여 다른 상속인들로부터 매매를 원인으로 하는 소유권이전등기를 마쳤다. 이에 따라 이 사건 토지에 관한 원고의 지분은 100/5，729(≒100/5，7300/148，720 + 2，300/148，720 = 2，600/148，720)으로서 망 이BB가 사망 전 보유하던 지분과 같게 되었다. 원고는 이 사건 토지의 다른 공유자들을 상대로 신탁해지를 원인으로 하는 소유권이전등기소송(인천지방법원 2005가단114661호)을 제기하였다가 소제기 이후에 공유자들이 일부지분이 처분되었다는 이유로 2006. 12. 29. 일부 승소판결을 선고받고 항소(서울고등법원 2007나2107)를 제기하였으나 해당 소송은 2008. 2. 25. 화해권고결정이의신청취하로 종결되었다.

C. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant Incheon Metropolitan City seeking compensation for damages from the OOOO members (Seoul District Court 2006Da16068) based on the identical factual basis with the instant case, but filed an appeal and final appeal for the following reasons, which was invalidated, but was sentenced to dismissal or dismissal on May 22, 2009 or August 20, 2009. However, in the case of a separate-related party, the co-ownership registration has mutual title trust relation, and if the land is designated within the zone subject to the land readjustment project, the co-ownership registration is merely in mutual title trust relation, and if the land is designated within the zone subject to the land substitution project, the land substitution (or the sectional ownership) can be designated as independent land on the basis of the possession (or the land substitution), but even after the actual relationship of the land registered as co-ownership whenever the land substitution is designated, it cannot be deemed as tort, even if the Plaintiff did not obtain the land substitution designation in accordance with the mutual title trust relation, and there is no special circumstance that the Plaintiff actually maintained co-owner’s co-ownership relation with the land under mutual title trust relation.

Facts without dispute over the basis of recognition, evidence A 1 through 23, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) ① The networkB purchased the State-owned land divided by specifying the location and size, so the Defendant Incheon Metropolitan City committed an error in the registration of transfer due to co-ownership even though it is required to make a single registration, and the networkB or the Plaintiff was removed from the building due to its failure to exercise any right to the three bonds unauthorized buildings on its ground, and caused damages not paid compensation for the building and damages not paid for the use of and profit from the building for 45 years. ① The instant land should be registered at 10/720 as co-ownership shares before the replotting increase by the replotting area, even though the replotting area should be registered at 118.7/73 square meters. ② The Defendant Incheon Metropolitan City is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW OOO as compensation to the Plaintiff.

(2) On March 28, 1960, Defendant Republic of Korea had a duty to sell land before replotting to the deceased BB, to allow the above residents to use the land before replotting properly, such as leaving the above residents, and through the revision of the relevant laws, Defendant Republic of Korea has a duty to prevent the Plaintiff from incurring any loss as above in the course of replotting, and thus, Defendant Republic of Korea is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for such loss.

B. Determination on the part of Defendant Incheon Metropolitan City

According to the above evidence, as seen earlier, the plaintiff filed a claim for damages against the defendant Incheon Metropolitan City while asserting the same claim as in the lawsuit in this case, and the judgment became final and conclusive upon being sentenced to the dismissal judgment, the claim against the defendant Incheon Metropolitan City is not acceptable as it conflicts with res judicata.

C. Determination on the part of Defendant Republic of Korea

Since Defendant Republic of Korea fulfilled all the obligations under a sales contract by completing the registration of transfer of ownership in accordance with a sales contract between the deceased BB, it is not acceptable to accept the assertion premised on the breach of obligations under a sales contract. Defendant Republic of Korea cannot be deemed to have an obligation as alleged in the Plaintiff’s assertion on the relevant part cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.